November 19th, 2012

To add to this post I wrote on Saturday, Romney’s “missing” McCain-vote total is now down to approximately 250,000 votes. As Gabriel Malor at Ace’s points out, Romney got more votes than McCain (and more votes than George Bush) in swing states except for Ohio, and even there the difference was not very large. And Romney did just as well in the red states.

So, where was Republican turnout a bit less than before? In the blue states. Is this because people there are discouraged because the voting is so lopsided? Or is it because Republicans have been moving away? Or perhaps because these are the easiest states for Democrats to commit voter fraud?

If you want to know why I’m still harping on this stuff it’s because it remains very important to understand why this election was lost, and what we could do about it in the future, and to be as correct as possible about it. And yes, there are quite a few people who are saying “all is lost, and will always be lost” and think such discussion is futile. I can’t think of a more certain way to make it futile than to give up.

This entry was posted
on Monday, November 19th, 2012 at 11:38 am and is filed under Election 2012.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I agree analysis is useful, but in the end we want a solution not just a well analyzed problem. I think the problem is that the system in DC is corrupt and cannot be reformed from within. The solution may require a very different path than picking the right candidates. Reform probably has to come from outside in the form of state-led efforts to reassert their rights (ie, take back control from the federal government).

The state by state electoral polling never showed that Romney would win so I am not sure why you continue to pretend like he was somehow supposed to pull out the election.

That said I read an post of yours a couple days ago that was truly silly. You think that because Obama says his team doesn’t play politics that makes him dangerous. Are you nuts? Tell me when has a president ever said, ‘My team plays politics.’.

Please do some history. LBJ and Nixon and Reagan come to mind as presidents who were much more dangerous in their actions and deeds. Hell Reagan did an arms deal with terrorists in Iran who had kidnapped our citizens! How is that not foolish and dangerous?? Yes, Reagan has fall men all around him who could take the blame. That was useful for him. He was an actor….

Steve: the beginning of a solution lies in understanding what went wrong. And then after that, correcting it. If you don’t understand what the problem was you’re just flailing around in the dark and wasting your effort.

What we can do about the lost election in the future? Ask that in about 3 years, when the consequences of this defeat are manifest. The American future is bleak, financially, militarily, and politically, and “It’s always darkest before the dawn” talk does not make it any less bleak.

Your larger theme is that Obama is ‘dangerous’ because he criticizes the press and/or other politicians for going after members of his team. His statement last week about Rice was pretty straight forward to anyone who was listening. He said if you have a problem with a member of my team you come to me with the complaint. Get it?

But your view is that when Obama tells McCain and Graham [or the press] to criticize him rather than Rice you think he is acting like an imperial president. That is illogical. In fact, Obama’s statement is the epitome of ‘the buck stops here.’ He is saying, “hey, bring your criticisms to me and lets talk about your issues with Rice because Rice is in MY administration.” Which is true.

Every president bristles when someone criticizes their team. This is not a new phenomena. You act like it is. How would YOU answer the question? Would you say, “Well yeah Rice was wrong she misspoke and I will not promote her now” Or would you say, “I respect McCain and Graham but I kindly disagree with their assessment. I’ll call them and we’ll have lunch.” There are many ways he could have answered the question in the ‘politically correct’ way a President is apparently supposed to talk. But the real world isn’t a children’s book with idealistic caricatures.

He said if you have a problem with a member of my team you come to me with the complaint. Get it?

But your view is that when Obama tells McCain and Graham [or the press] to criticize him rather than Rice you think he is acting like an imperial president.

Having lived in Montana, I know BS. This is it.

Obama’s response is like a football coach saying “If you have a problem with my running back’s performance you come to me with the complaint. Get it?”

Now we have a problem with the way Susan Rice played. Susan Rice has fumbled the ball, perhaps at the White House’s direction, and we are criticizing both Susan Rice and Barack Obama and such is our right as their employers. Period.

As for Obama’s directive to McCain and Graham, there is one obvious omission. Sen. Kelly Ayotte is also on that criticizing team. Funny, he doesn’t mention her. Can’t consruct the narrative of two old white racist guys criticizing a minority woman when one of the critiques comes from a woman herself.

And is’t not the imperiousness, although examples of that would fill several pages. It’s the faux chivalry. “I am woman hear me roar,” that is until she is criticized and denegerates into a pearl-clutching swoon. Note BTW, it isn’t Rice to my knowledge who is criticizing the criticizers, it’s Obama, the man-savior, who trumps up the need to ride his white horse to the fair damsel’s rescue.

Fair damsel’s don’t belong in politics. Obama attempts to play both sides of the coin.

Some may call it futile, others may call it facing reality. Of course not “all is lost”depending on what it is you are referring to.
Do I think my wish for a less intrusive government not run by unaccountable bureaucrats is as much of a pipe dream as the liberal’s dream of a socialist utopia? Sadly, yes.
Am I suggesting giving up? No. But I do think the Republican party is a sad joke big government party that only cares about their turn in power.
And I think many of us would be better off concentrating on what we can do to improve our own lives. And depending on your outlook, think about things like freezers, generators, etc.

And as proof about how the MSM controls the discussion, note that MDL does not mention Kelly Ayotte, the third Senator at the conference with McCain and Graham.

Reagan took responsibility for the deaths of the servicemen and women in Lebanon. We are still waiting for any sort of an explanation from Obama. There is no reason why he can’t tell us what he learned about Benghazi and when he learned it.

T
The question that was asked at the press conference in which Obama gave his response you find so offensive only used the names McCain and Graham. The name Ayotte was not mentioned in the question. So, naturally, it would not make sense for Obama to mention Ayotte in his answer. Stop spinning.

Teri Pittman
The reason I mentioned Reagan is because his actions in Iran / Contra were much more in line with something an imperial president would do. He did the [illegal] trade without the knowledge or [naturally] the approval of Congress. THAT is dangerous. Obama being chivalrous and defending Rice is not dangerous. Nor are his apparent ‘tells’ that ‘prove’ he is trying to be king. Or whatever.

Also here are Obama’s words on Benghazi: “I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.”

Neo –
I agree to some extent with Malor’s analysis, but the problem is many republican “consultants” seem to interpret this to mean republicans need to blur the lines between themselves and democrats on social issues. If that is what he is suggesting, it seems to me this is still the argument that the only battle is for the middle — for the small percentage of people who have no affiliation or core principles that garner their vote.
This is a big problem – you’re shooting at a moving target. Cultural issues were THIS year’s concern. But given that premise, it also says that the same group saw little to lose in their personal econmics voting for Obama. So making the case that their decision came down to culture, you have to ask yourself why this was first and foremost — the answer is pretty obvious — one answer would be it’s the only difference they noticed.
I agree with him the swing voters are ridiculous, but they are also probably the most self centered in the respect that they will vote whichever way benefits them the most at that moment in time. When you listen to the rooms full of Luntze’s dunces, (who are always “undecided”) their criticism is always around personal considerations. I’ve never heard a single one express concerns about socialism, personal liberties, foreign policy, what country will my children inherit, etc; they always want to know things like “how much are my taxes going down? He never said” or “how is he going to fix my health care, he didn’t explain that”, “I don’t think he understands me” etc.
So I agree they are not partisan, but neither are they much interested in anything that doesn’t affect their daily lives, and would gladly vote for a dictator if their was no downside for them personally, and there were enough specific goodies to sweeten the deal.
I do agree a Romney’s singular focus on the economy was shortsighted, and that was discussed extensively during the campaign, but Romney’s team turned a deaf ear to it. For one, I was exasperated, and often bored at the unwillingness to talk about much else. And it’s my contention he didn’t effectively communicate how his economic policy would improve the disinterested voters in terms they could understand. Sound bites, not soaring rhetoric.
The view that it was all about cultural issues must also include the perspective through which the voters saw the choice, although nobody would disagree theres more to being president than the economy, and Romney could not get that through his head.
On some level, Romney’s campaign on some level confirmed what the Democrats were saying about him — by focusing entirely on economics, the debt and money, he fit nicely into the pidgeon hole the Democrats made for him — he’s a greedy business man who doesn’t care about people. Whenever the discussion was about anything else, it was obvious he wasn’t comfortable with it.
If the Republican party tries to marginalize conservatives, as seems to be the coventional wisdom, they will do worse not better. The only reason the Republicans ended up in control of the House in 2010 was because of the Tea Party, but instead of understanding why that worked and building on its success, Boner and company did their best to shut them up. The bottom line is when they are in a position to govern, they don’t govern as conservatives, and the House will prove this again in a few weeks.
Romney spent his whole campaign focusing on a few states and lost; the thinking now seems to be that he didn’t get their attention with the right issues or spend enought time thinking about them.. I say they’re a lost cause because they don’t stand for anything, and 4 years from now, their whims could turn a different direction. All the votes are on the coasts, and the Republicans need to focus on converting blue states to red. That is a difficult and long term task, but it’s not impossible. Many red states used to be blue and vice-versa, so big changes can happen.
But I am convinced Republicans cannot win in the long run thinking small, thinking one dimensionally, or who concede half the population to the other guy.

Count me as one who believes ‘all is lost’ and to struggle against the near term future is as futile as opposing a tsunami.

Participation, in earnest, in a corrupt country (world) is more than useless – it serves as imprimatur and is destructive to the soul because such participation, with the best of intentions, must make compromises and you can’t compromise with corruption and evil and hope to have anything changed but yourself.

The government has long ago been voted out, by the people, for the State. This last election is the most recent in a series – not a one off thing. Name one institution in this country, government or otherwise, that is not corrupt. Voting itself has been corrupted by disorganized incompetence, organized fraud, and institutional (DOJ) endorsement. The American electorate is corrupt and can be bought off as cheaply as those in a banana republic – from cell phones to credit transfers for votes; no matter who’s running, they (we) most often vote ME. American schools are corrupt – teaching vandalized history, green hothouse eco-doom environmentalism, and Introduction To The Pansexual World 101. The parents of the children attending such schools are laissez-faire corrupt. Churches, leaders and congregation, are corrupt. The military has been corrupted. The Financial system has been corrupted. Large international businesses are corrupt. The institutions responsible for the safety and security of citizens – FEMA, DHS, – have been corrupted. The idea of human dignity has been corrupted – by the TSA. And the people who would allow all this are corrupt.

The Founders and Framers were profound, methodical, and unreserved, in their distrust of government. I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong and much to suggest they were not adamant enough. They made both a rebellion and country from little more than “no taxation without representation”. We, now, have not only a trust in government, but dependence on it, and, like the child aware of the most base dynamic between himself and the parent, a base love of it. It’s easy to see that a genuine desire to be free can initiate much but without it nothing will change except for the worse. There are not men (women) the likes of the Founders anywhere to be found and as much can be said of the colonists – we are not their match – not by a long shot.

Here is the crux as described by William Golding author of Lord of the Flies who says of it:
The theme is an attempt to trace the defects of society back to the defects of human nature. The moral is that the shape of a society must depend on the ethical nature of the individual and not on any political system however apparently logical or respectable.

Southpaw,
In the end I think it came down to an unwillingness to vote out the first black president. Everytime the race card is played, there are those who will reflexively vote to prove they aren’t racist. The Congressional Black Caucus is even using the race card to defend Rice.

I did not follow the press conference. If, as you say, only McCain’s and Graham’s name were mentioned in the question, then an in-the-tank press committed the primary sin. I will cede that point. Still, Obama could have responded without repeating the names of only two of the three or he could have included Sen. Ayotte as part of the group inhis reply. The fact that Obama intensified the point by repeating the spin (at the very least, it played right into his hand) does not dilute but rather reinforces my own allegation of faux chivalry and its attendant implications.

I will give BHO the credit for taking the responsibility in that press conference. However, the damn MSM should have followed up with: “Ok, so you want us to come after you? Here it is: why did you tell Ambassador Rice to lie to the American people 5 days after the attack that you knew at a minimum of 24 hours, and probably within 1 hour, after was due to terrorists? Second question: why did you continue the lie in your address to the UN?”

So, I’ll let Rice off the hook. If the buck stops with BHO, that suits me just fine. Somehow he will avoid all responsibility as he always does… Lying……..well I can’t really put the noun that follows that adjective and still be somewhat civil.

Yes, as much as I tried to avoid it, I have succombed to BHO degrangement syndrome.

foxmarks: how much did the white male, married female, population grow between 2008 and 2012? I doubt very much (if at all). And remember that any drop-off in votes for Romney over McCain was tiny, and occurred in blue states. Swing states and red states did see him besting McCain.

So unless there was some huge upswing in the Republican demographic, I don’t quite see your point, except to crow about the Republican loss because you “told us so.” And actually, any other one of the Republican candidates who ran this year would have done considerably worse, and that is what we had to choose from. I don’t think most people (and certainly not I) thought Romney was the best possible candidate in the entire Republican Party. But he was definitely the best one willing to run this year.

Who in blazes would be willing to offer him/herself for the “R” Party candidacy, given the ongoing sucker-punches and penetrating proctological exam by the “D” Party – mainstream media tag team in response?

MDL: Once again, the depth of your misunderstanding of what I’m saying is profound. Only I would guess that it’s not really a misunderstanding, and that you know that you’re creating a strawman.

You write:

Your larger theme is that Obama is ‘dangerous’ because he criticizes the press and/or other politicians for going after members of his team. His statement last week about Rice was pretty straight forward to anyone who was listening. He said if you have a problem with a member of my team you come to me with the complaint. Get it?

Absolutely not. He said much more than that, and I quoted his words. But let me repeat them, and this time I’ll help you out by highlighting the parts I’m especially objecting to:

But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

And this from the second debate, in the same vein:

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

This is what is dangerous—and different—about Obama. It’s the idea that (as I wrote in my post):

Try as I may, I cannot recall any other president implying that criticism of the statements of an ambassador to the UN, acting in his/her official capacity as spokesperson, should be off-limits… and that such comments are “outrageous” and “offensive” and beyond the pale.

He certainly can say why he thinks the criticisms of Rice (or others) are incorrect or unsupported—that would not be unusual, nor would I call it the least bit dangerous. But what is completely new in Obama—and this is the dangerous part for a US president, and imperious—is that he acts as though they have no right to criticize someone like Rice (or anyone else on his team) in this manner and to suggest that the Obama camp is spinning the truth for political reasons (which, by the way, is exactly and precisely what Obama and company have done), and that there is something offensive and outrageous about suggesting it as a possibility.

M J R: I have wondered about that myself. What Republican but an egomaniac would consider running after this, with so much arrayed against him/her? (Actually, I wondered that already back in 2008, when I saw the feeding frenzy against Palin).

I believe it is a conscious goal of the MSM (to discourage good people from running), in addition to all their other goals.

Bernard Goldberg just pointed the normal conditions of “you fail you get fired” don’t apply to this President, because his appeal is emotional. In other words the people don’t have to face reality because a good livelihood and physical security are guaranteed by nature. Perhaps after Obamacare kicks in and the bodies start piling up and the recession deepens and people lose a few meals a few more voters will come to their senses.

“He certainly can say why that thinks the criticisms are incorrect or unsupported—that would not be unusual. But what is completely new in Obama—and this is the dangerous part for a US president, and imperious—is that he acts as though they have no right to criticize someone like Rice (or someone else on his team) in this manner and to suggest that the Obama camp is spinning the truth for political reasons (which, by the way, is exactly and precisely what it has done), and that there is something offensive and outrageous about it”

Agree 100% the election has infused him with a new sense of a self importance and invinicibility. This is what the people asked for. I full expect the next 4 years to be filled with more of the same condescending lectures and outright threats from the boy who would be king. He is a very dangerous man; more so because so few recognize his sociopathic tendencies.
Just as disturbing as his press conference, I have actualy heard a number of conservatives admiring the display of testosterone as chivalrous and admirable. Apparently they’re not aware of the fact this isn’t his wife or daughter, she’s an employee who screwed up; or she should have asked her boss a few more questions. But maybe there’s more to this than the over protective boyfriend act. Maybe Barack doth protest too much.
Maybe Rice has indicated to him privately she’s not interested in taking the fall if the wheels come off the train, and the barking Barack routine was the King’s public reassurance that he’s going to keep the wolves at bay. Maybe they should subpoena Rice and her fles and records and the people around her and see how many roaches scurry for cover.
Rice might indeed have been following orders, but she must know something, or he wouldn’t have thrown down the gauntlet. The press either touched a nerve, it’s a misdirection, or else he’s played a game or two of pickup (basketball) with her he’d rather not want disclosed.

Its called fascism. In BHO’s POV we all belong to the state and he is the state. Mirror, mirror on the wall he is the fairest of all. And if you don’t agree he yearns for the power to frog march you to the reeducation camp.

You ask what would satisfy me? That’s easy and simple. I want Obama to stop pissing on American legs and telling us it’s raining; I want Obama to have the good of the country at heart for once and not his own Planck’s length thin skin or his fragile ego.

Of course the problem is that because of his incongruency between action and word over the past four years he has earned my deep, deep distrust.

With all due respect I think you may be the one who is profoundly misunderstanding what Obama has said. Let’s break it down.

In the debate he said:And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

Note he is NOT saying they cannot criticize someone on his team. He is saying “to suggest that they would play politics or mislead… is offensive.”

Do you see the difference? You assume he is saying “never criticize my team ever.” When it is pretty clear [from his own words] he is putting the emphasis on people accusing his team of playing politics or misleading in a situation that lead to deaths, which is very different. [!]

What he said with regards to McCain and Graham at the press conference is similar. The emphasis is not that they are questioning her in general but that they are singling her out for using talking points that the intelligence community and the CIA approved of her to say. So, very simply, he is saying don’t criticize her for doing what we told her to do.

Now, if Obama said “no one in the press and no one in Washington is ever allowed to criticize my team under any circumstances” – then I might see your point. But he is not saying that. Maybe you don’t see the difference? I see a big difference.

MDL: “they are singling her out for using talking points that the intelligence community and the CIA approved of her to say.”

^She^ was the one whom the White House appointed as spokesperson to go on the talk shows, fergawdsake!!! ^That^’s why she’s been singled out.

MDL’s examples suggest things the incumbent would never say ^openly^. But it’s that “chilling effect” I hear and read so much about [normally from left-of-center types, especially during Republican administrations, if we ever see another one] in other contexts.

Friend neo, I salute your exemplary patience with MDL and your willingness to do what you’re doing.

LOL, funny. Yes, of course they are singling her out for that reason. But if she is using talking points then isn’t the blame more on the people who gave her the talking points? If you single out someone from your office to speak on your behalf would you not – at the end of the day – stand up for them if YOU told them to say something that was incorrect? Or maybe if your intelligence team gave her bad info? Or would you throw them under the bus as you expect Obama to do. Very odd, man. Very odd.

“Count me as one who believes ‘all is lost’ and to struggle against the near term future is as futile as opposing a tsunami.”

Count me as one who does not believe all is lost. We the people survived Jackson, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and WJC. We are resilient. Granted, BHO has put the pedal to the metal, but with courage we can survive BHO & the MSM. If it all comes down to dust we the people will win. Think about the war of session from King George. On paper it was a hopeless endeavor. In reality it was victory. Never give up.

The man (using that word loosely) is hiding behind Ms. Rice, as a bully hides behind his mommy’s apron going “nyaah nyaah, come and get me.”

He’s daring them to question him. If they did, he’d invoke executive privilege or something, and he’d accuse them of McCarthyism or something.

I’m not going to play this game.

He is despicable ^and^ dangerous.

He himself would not be so dangerous, but the tag-team of him plus the non-FOX non-talk-radio media, covering for him every step of the way even as they worship him (and his missus), is dangerous in the extreme.

Neo-neocon
Let me illustrate the difference as I see it.
Let’s say that you testified on Capitol Hill.
And when it was all done there were some inconsistencies in your statements versus what you had said a few days previous.

About your testimony: Senator A said, “I think Neo needs to clarify her testimony because there are some inconsistencies.”
But Senator B said: “I think Neo is purposely misleading and playing politics with her statements.”
Do you see a difference in the two statements? One Senator is seeking answers while the other Senator is essentially calling you a liar.
So then your boss [who happens to be the president] says at a press conference, “I find what Senator B said to be outrageous. He is besmirching Neo…”

Now, we can go around and around about chivalry and all that. But the primary thing the president would be doing here is calling out people who are saying that you are lying. I don’t call that dangerous. I call that a president standing up for you because someone called you a liar. I expect that from any president or boss or teacher or coach, et al.

“But if she is using talking points then isn’t the blame more on the people who gave her the talking points? If you single out someone from your office to speak on your behalf would you not – at the end of the day – stand up for them if YOU told them to say something that was incorrect?”

If BHO was not in the situation room within 10 minutes after the attack began, where the hell was he? So from your stated perspective, why did BHO put her out to swing in the wind? Answer those question in a coherent matter and I might begin to grant you are sincere. (Not holding my breath.)

“Or maybe if your intelligence team gave her bad info?”

You sir/madam are a shill, a whore, and beyond contempt. 4 dead in Benghazi occurred on 9/11/12. On 9/15/12 Rice, at the behest of your messiah, appeared 5 times blathering the “video myth”. We now know the “intelligence team” knew within a few minutes this was not a “spontaneous demonstration over a video”. Fold it 5 ways and stick it where the sun does not shine.

Sigh, I must repeat: You sir or madam are simply seeking to be the BHO czar of distraction and obstruction. Tag, you’re it.

parker
Hold off the anger, sir. I don’t disrespect you or anyone here. We’re Americans first.
I’ve only seen the CBS interview that Rice gave. I’m not defending the administration. I don’t speak for them. Rice was incorrect in her statements. Whether or not she is to blame or Obama is to blame or whomever you want to blame all needs to be sorted out in Congressional hearings.

But here’s the thing: No matter where you stand, or liberals stand or what you think about this mess the four deaths are still a tragedy. I hope we can agree on that point. No amount of spin from democrats, republicans, Obama or McCain is going to change that. If you want to say the deaths were Obama’s fault and Obama’s fault alone then that’s fine. That’s your opinion. My comments above do not address that. They are with regards to the meaning of Obama’s press conference statements defending his team and Rice.

But if you want to focus on what happened after the attack then I don’t know if Rice lied. It is possible. I mean, did Bush and Powell lie once upon a time? Did Clinton, did Reagan, did Nixon, did LBJ? The list goes on. It doesn’t make it right but who is shocked? Isn’t that what congressional hearings will yield? If they don’t then you need to blame the system because these lies have been going on for a couple hundred years. Only now it is the conservative’s time to yell about it. I get it.

@neo-neocon : at 6:03 pm What Republican but an egomaniac would consider running after this, with so much arrayed against him/her? (Actually, I wondered that already back in 2008, when I saw the feeding frenzy against Palin).

I would add to that a bit to ask “Will the RNC ever advance the hoary chestnut again that the most important political attribute of a ‘viable’ candidate’s selection in the primary consists of the RNC’s affirmation of said candidate’s general campaign ‘electability’, after failing disastrously with probably the very best candidate to run on that vacuous canard in the past 40 years”?

…this asked by someone who came to like and admire …and deeply respect …Romney (but who was livid through most of the primaries).

Romney was all about his so-called “electability” in the primaries. I haven’t forgotten that.

Are we finally going to reject some vacuous claim of “electability” in the future as the incredibly weak sauce that it proved to be (i.e., when we nominated a candidate based 9 parts precisely on the nostrum of electability)?

Electability be damned.

My two bits.

Yeah. Color me bitter.

…as for Palin, that’s about the exact same time I came to find the Left not merely wrong, but despicable-bordering-on-evil. All of ’em.

I’ve now added inbred Darwin Award fodder to that judgment. And have included vast swathes of the Democrat base.

MDL: Oh, pul-lease. Politicians call each other liars all the time, and call their representatives liars all the time. Sometimes they are correct and sometimes incorrect when they call each other liars.

Obama and his campaign and underlings are actually masters at the false charge of lying. And the Democrats perfected the “liar” charge when they accused Bush and his representatives (falsely, I believe) vis a vis WMDs in Iraq (which I referred to in my post), which the entire world thought Saddam had, and yet about which they accused the administration of lying (not just being mistaken) when they claimed just that.

And yet Bush never indicated those over-the-top claims of his enemies and opponents were offensive or outrageous or off-limits or anything of the sort.

Meanwhile, that’s what Obama said—and not just about the claims against Rice, but the claims that anyone in his administration would ever do such a thing.

Meanwhile, there are only two possible interpretations of Rice’s actions: she was lying knowingly, or the administration asked her to lie and she was their unwitting patsy but should have known it was a lie (and by that time it was abundantly clear that it was a lie, so she certainly ought to have known).

Here are McCain’s remarks in their entirety. They are, quite simply, true. By the time Rice spoke anyone who had been following the story knew what she said was untrue. So she was either knowingly lying, or she should have known.

And that is correct. Nothing whatsoever outrageous or offensive about it—unless the truth is outrageous and offensive if it reflects poorly on Obama and/or someone in his administration.

As McCain says in the video, “All of us are responsible for the things we’ve said.” But Obama is trying to absolve Susan Rice of responsibility, and that is the thing that is “offensive” and “outrageous.”

Obama also lied about himself in the second debate, when Crowley falsely (lying or mistaken) backed him up. He was trying to absolve himself of responsibility for his own words, and falsely represented his Rose Garden speech.

I sincerely doubt your sincerity. I think you don’t give a damn about 4 dead in Benghazi. I think you are parroting talking points. Susan Rice is a lackey. Her statements are not the point. What BHO knew and when he knew it OR (as someone pointed out) what he didn’t know and when he didn’t know it is the focus of my ire.

4 dead in Benghazi, Obama is not coming, jihadists are cutting diplomats down. The more we learn, the more we (other than shills and lackeys) discover lies to cover up a narrative that Obama killed Osama and all is well.

MDL: It occurs to me that something else needs saying—that the lie (or egregiously uninformed/stupid error, take your pick) is about something that should have been obvious was untrue from the start.

Defenders of Rice and/or Obama forget that the probable terrorist origin of the Benghazi attack was not unclear. It was not something that was difficult to ascertain. And if Rice couldn’t figure it out, then she isn’t qualified to be Secretary of State; it’s really just as simple as that. She should have recognized immediately that she was being told to lie.

How do I know? Because I figured it out almost immediately, and I’m not qualified to be Secretary of State, either—but I seem to be more on the ball than Rice. Here is my very first post on the subject, published on Sept. 12. A few excerpts:

And now the terrible murder of the US ambassador to Libya, and the three other embassy workers—complete with horrific-appearing visuals conjuring up memories of Blawkhawk Down, but which have recently been reported to be of people taking him to the hospital (hard to believe, but I suppose possible)—spark further outrage, and also do not make the president look good.

In addition: why was the security at the embassy so poor? Could this not have been predicted? Especially on 9/11? Which also does not make the president look good.

And if by saying that I’m “politicizing” the attacks, of course I am. But they are already political; what else would they be, in addition to tragic and anger-provoking? Such an event will naturally engender commentary and criticism, and part of that commentary and criticism will be of the administration on whose watch it occurred…

It seems likely that the attacks were coordinated and not by spontaneous mobs at all. That makes a great deal of sense, especially considering the locations—embassies in two different countries— and the date, 9/11, as well as the fact that a rocket seems to have been involved. It has all the hallmarks of coordination by an al Qaeda-esque group.

Remember, that’s me, writing on September 12, 2012. Just common sense to anyone paying attention.

Now suddenly [Qaddafi’s] got to go – in favor of “freedom-loving” “democrats” from Benghazi. That would be in eastern Libya – which, according to West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center, has sent per capita the highest number of foreign jihadists to Iraq. Perhaps now that so many Libyan jihadists are in Iraq, the Libyans left in Libya are all Swedes in waiting. But perhaps not. If we lack, as we do in Afghanistan, the cultural confidence to wean those we liberate from their less-attractive pathologies, we might at least think twice before actively facilitating them.

McCarthy says much the same thing about what will happen in Libya.

I wrote that “we will have sold them the rope with which they will attempt to hang us.”

So, there’s no reason to wonder why Obama would be so eager to disavow any al Qaeda connection in the Libya attacks. His motivation was political, to cover his errors and lack of foresight, as well as his failure to protect the consulate and the ambassador. And there is nothing outrageous or offensive about saying so. It’s outrageous and offensive to ignore it.

parker, 11:15 pm: “I think you don’t give a damn about 4 dead in Benghazi. I think you are parroting talking points. Susan Rice is a lackey. Her statements are not the point. What BHO knew and when he knew it OR (as someone pointed out) what he didn’t know and when he didn’t know it is the focus of my ire.”

I’m reminded of the incumbent’s assuring (some of) the electorate that the Banghazi situation is a bump in the road, and yeah, I mean, like, there are always going to be bumps in the road (you know).

I will not speculate as to MDL’s sincerity, but I suggest there’s a spectrum from caring/empathizing a great deal to not giving a damn. We know where the incumbent sat (on the plane to Vegas the next morning), and to me that’s much more important than where MDL sits.

Susan Rice saw her job as propounding whatever narrative her boss (the incumbent) wanted propounded. Was she in on it, or was she innocent? We may never know, but it’s a side issue.

That’s where parker is on target: “what he [the incumbent] didn’t know and when he didn’t know it is the focus of my ire.” That’s the main issue.

It is appearing increasingly likely that it was the incumbent Himself (or his staff, with His approval) who altered the official narrative and gave it to Susan Rice to make a fool of herself.

Ms. Rice hitched her cart to The Star, never dreaming that she (of all people) may have to be the fall guy/gal for Him. It should have been Hillary, the Secretary of State, but Hillary was too smart to be made a fool of in the Benghazi atrocity.

Ms. Rice was auditioning in real-time to be the next Secretary of State, so here came the charges of racism/sexism/whateverism from the eeeevil bad guys.

“So, there’s no reason to wonder why Obama would be so eager to disavow any al Qaeda connection in the Libya attacks. His motivation was political, to cover his errors and lack of foresight, as well as his failure to protect the consulate and the ambassador. And there is nothing outrageous or offensive about saying so. It’s outrageous and offensive to ignore it.”

Indeed!

“We know where the incumbent sat (on the plane to Vegas the next morning), and to me that’s much more important than where MDL sits.”

Agreed. MDL is a stooge. BHO is a dangerous narcissist occupying the oval office.

Look at this video (for about 30 seconds beginning at about 1:02) of Hillary Clinton’s eulogy at Andrews Air Force base on 9/14/12 and assess for yourself whether you really believe she’s speaking the truth. There’s something fundamentally false on display here, not only in her words but in the tone of the delivery. It’s obvious to me that this wooden performance is just that: she’s towing a scripted party line that even she doesn’t really believe; she just doesn’t have her heart in this line of BS.

Leftist culture = American culture, and any attempt to include in a political platform the ideas, “the government should be small, taxes should be low, men and women should marry to raise children, God is important, self-restraint is good,” etc. will lose.

The Republican Party can win only in so far as they support larger welfare checks for, well, everyone on the dole: farmers, scientists, military contractors, students pursuing worthless degrees, and unwed mothers and their bastards; they ridicule religion; they denounce Israel; they support progressive taxation; and every other Leftist cultural issue.

The political spectrum in American will be from hard Left to harder Left, just as it is in Europe. Obamunism’s victory is total.

Just incidentally, and for MDL and everyone else, I emphatically do NOT agree that the death of the four Americans in Benghazi was a tragedy. It was an act of hostile aggression, an enemy attack on this nation, and an outrage. I’m utterly, completely sick of the stupid, maudlin, public, unrestrained and undignified air of mourning we have taken to adopting every time our enemies successfully attack us. The only thing that surprises me about Benghazi is that we haven’t already contracted for the construction of a memorial at which to hold annual ceremonies of remembrance for the “victims.”

Malor almost sorta kinda gets it. If he had simply wrapped it all up in a simple summary, he’d have gotten an A. The GOP has been slandered to the point where the mushy middle voter believes all manner of ‘facts’ that are false — all of which paint a picture of mean, nasty, and only concerned about the 1%.

It isn’t political issues. It’s not cultural issues. It is an image problem. Same image problem that befell all kinds of individual GOP politicians.

It’s all Alinsky. The MSM and all the other propaganda wings of the Democratic Party amplify the slanders against the GOP. Romney didn’t say bad things about Dems during the convention. At the Dem convention, they abused generic Republicans in addition to Romney and Ryan.

My penultimate paragraph slipped into “muddled” territory at the end there. The idea was the three senators were saying things that the eeeevil bad guys could and-you-know-they-would characterize as racism/sexism/whateverism.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. Read More >>